ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:

> This might be the Finnish briefing from above; I found it very interesting:
>
> https://ricochet.com/1214468/finnish-intelligence-officer-explains-the-russian-mindset/

Thak you for that!

From the article:

Russia has the word "krugovaya poruka" or gang guarantee. It
means that when we have some set of people with a common
goal. Be it the Kremlin leadership or the Russian armed forces
or whatever. We have a common goal so I step out of the circle
and lie to an outsider. My gang hears that I lie but they don't
judge me as a liar because they understand that I am using
tactical truth (vranjo) to achieve the greater goals of our
gang. The use of tactical truth, or a lie, is accepted if it is
done for the benefit of the in-group. Just like you can steal
when you don't steal too much or from the wrong guy. You also
get to lie if you lie for the sake of the gang.

It's a form of doublethink, as Orwell showed in 1984. At the
kitchen table, different things are said than outside the
home. Everyone understands that Bob speaks very differently
around the kitchen table than he does in public. Everyone
understands why he does so. The in-group creates their own
story.

The across-the-party adoption of this principle by the GOP and TFG's
enablers, most of whom know they're lying and speak differently at the
kitchen table, apparently hope and promise to bring Russian-style
chaos, corruption and autocracy to the USA. Somehow, evangelical
Christians seem to have been especially susceptible to being entrained
is this maneuver to power contrary to generations of evangelical
religious principles.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:

> On 3/26/2024 2:11 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> In article <utv2pf$d1h$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are 120 million Russians in Russia (not every person in
>> Russia is Russian). Each Russian is about one tenth of a cubic
>> metre. 12 million cubic metres is a cube less than 220 metres on
>> an edge. Even if we double the volume, that is a cube less than
>> three football fields on a side. Easy to hide in mountains or
>> deep beneath the sea.
>
> Sounds like a good start.

ObRASFW: Stand on Zanzibar, with plenty of room to lie down and take a
nap?

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
>> the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
>
>Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
>the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.

What if it's only one armed foreigner?

>In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
>on behalf of the French government?

He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:

> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
> pure and simple.

So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
line too often before. "Love it or leave it."

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On 3/28/24 12:14 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:46:50 -0400, Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>>>
>>> pt
>>>
>> December 1814 not count?
>
> As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
> part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
> from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.
>
> And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
> people fanatically insistent on refuting it.

And now you're treating getting the month wrong as being "fanatically
insistent."

*plonk*

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On 3/28/2024 7:04 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
> On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
>> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
>> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
>> pure and simple.
>
> So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
> line too often before. "Love it or leave it."

Trump wasn't opposing US foreign policy. He was opposing the counting
of electoral votes, using a violent mob, because the normal operation
of government was going to put him out of power. At very least,
that's insurrection.

I really doubt that Trump actually takes orders from Moscow, but
he does seem to admire Putin, and its possible that Putin has
kompromat on him, which bends his actions even if not given
explicit instructions.

Looking at the actual law, 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND
SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES says:

§2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them OR
[helps enemies of the US] Shal <punishments>

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115&edition=prelim

With that, I think you can argue that Trumps actions *might* meet the
clause before the OR. In that case, yes, he committed treason.

pt

On 3/28/2024 11:02 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:14:01 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20
>>>> [June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
>>>> entered Berlin [April 1945].
>>>
>>> OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
>>> fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
>>> is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
>>> perspective.
>>
>> The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
>> Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
>
> Actually, an article on lend-lease in one of the military history
> magazines I subscribe to concluded that, without lend-lease, it would
> indeed have taken a year longer for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany
> in the East and occupy Berlin.
>
> But, of course, had Germany been in the war that long, the first
> atomic bomb would have gone to Berlin, not Hiroshima. Berlin would
> never have been occupied (well, not until the radiation was low
> enough).
>
> The Germans planned on a lightning-fast campaign that would seize
> everything on the run and end the war in the East before the snow
> fell. This turned out to be overly optimisitic; one might even say
> "pollyannish". Lack of Lend-Lease would not have changed this; it was
> a consequence of the Five Ps:
>
> Poor Planning Prevents Proper Performance

That lightning-fast campaign was a 1.3 million man army, supposedly the
largest army ever put together. The Nazis almost made it to Moscow
before the snow but got bogged down in Ukraine destroying 12,000 ???
villages and killing 12 million ??? Ukrainians. I guess that the Nazis
wanted to make sure that they could retreat without getting sniped at
the entire way back like Napoleon's army that lost 400,000 men
retreating from Moscow.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>That lightning-fast campaign was a 1.3 million man army, supposedly the
>largest army ever put together. The Nazis almost made it to Moscow
>before the snow but got bogged down in Ukraine destroying 12,000 ???
>villages and killing 12 million ??? Ukrainians. I guess that the Nazis
>wanted to make sure that they could retreat without getting sniped at
>the entire way back like Napoleon's army that lost 400,000 men
>retreating from Moscow.

Unfortunately the long-term consequences of trying to hold ground
occupied by people that now hate you for destroying their land is
generally not good. Many eastern europeans are still upset at Russians
as much as French over them employing that same tactic during the
Napoleonic wars.

Winning battles is easier than winning wars.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:44:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 3/28/2024 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2024 4:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>> Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>>>>>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>>>>>
>>>>>> December 1814 not count?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
>>>>> invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
>>>>
>>>> 1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
>>>> you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
>>>> who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
>>>> them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
>>>> teacher would not do so, however.
>>>>
>>>>> Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
>>>>> participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
>>>>> flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
>>>>> just confused.
>>>>
>>>> Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
>>>
>>> Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.
>>
>> I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.
>>
>> Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
>> been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
>> which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?
>>
>> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
>> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
>> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
>> pure and simple.
>>
>> The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted
>> authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
>> President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
>> they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
>> after all.
>
>With the current SC they will try to rule such that MAGA people cannot
>be barred but everyone else can be. :P

That's not what they ruled so far -- for purely local offices, at
least.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:35:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/28/2024 11:02 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:14:01 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20
>>>>> [June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
>>>>> entered Berlin [April 1945].
>>>>
>>>> OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
>>>> fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
>>>> is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
>>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
>>> Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
>>
>> Actually, an article on lend-lease in one of the military history
>> magazines I subscribe to concluded that, without lend-lease, it would
>> indeed have taken a year longer for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany
>> in the East and occupy Berlin.
>>
>> But, of course, had Germany been in the war that long, the first
>> atomic bomb would have gone to Berlin, not Hiroshima. Berlin would
>> never have been occupied (well, not until the radiation was low
>> enough).
>>
>> The Germans planned on a lightning-fast campaign that would seize
>> everything on the run and end the war in the East before the snow
>> fell. This turned out to be overly optimisitic; one might even say
>> "pollyannish". Lack of Lend-Lease would not have changed this; it was
>> a consequence of the Five Ps:
>>
>> Poor Planning Prevents Proper Performance
>
>That lightning-fast campaign was a 1.3 million man army, supposedly the
>largest army ever put together. The Nazis almost made it to Moscow
>before the snow but got bogged down in Ukraine destroying 12,000 ???
>villages and killing 12 million ??? Ukrainians. I guess that the Nazis
>wanted to make sure that they could retreat without getting sniped at
>the entire way back like Napoleon's army that lost 400,000 men
>retreating from Moscow.

Which is the point: they may have nearly got there, but they failed.

And lend-lease had nothing to do with it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#:~:text=Lend-Lease%2C%20formally%20the%20Lend-Lease%20Act%20and%20introduced%20as,food%2C%20oil%2C%20and%20materiel%20between%201941%20and%201945.]
(which records some very negative evaluations of the Soviet war
ability without Lend-Lease, some of which may be a reaction to other
opinions that it was of little importance, mostly if not entirely from
Soviet sources) quotes David Glantz as saying, in part, that

"Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the
difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement
must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve
of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates."

He also notes that "trucks, railroad engines, and railroad cars" were
vital to the offensives the Soviet Army undertook as the war went on.

This same Poor Planning resulted in the unavailabilty of suitable
clothing for the troops when the weather turned cold -- and suitable
lubricants as well. There were, IIRC, some early battles where the
Soviets pushed in, found themselves surrounded, and pulled back out --
which was feasible because the artillery was not functioning because
the lubricants used were not up to the job because of the cold.

But, yes, their extermination campaigns were well-planned --
particularly if they wanted to encourage the creation of Partisan
units to harass them. The film /Come and See/ applies here.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:04:27 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
wrote:

>On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
>> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
>> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
>> pure and simple.
>
>So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
>line too often before. "Love it or leave it."

No -- but acting as an agent of a foreign power when you have sworn an
oath to the USA (not just pledged allegiance, sworn an oath as part of
taking an office, such as, oh, Reprentative or Senator or President,
among many others) can be, depending on what the foreign power is up
to and if you allow your allegiance to that power to influence your
official performance.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:07:56 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
wrote:

>On 3/28/24 12:14 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:46:50 -0400, Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>>>>
>>>> pt
>>>>
>>> December 1814 not count?
>>
>> As a "nigglened edge case", it would. If it had happened and was not
>> part of the War of 1812 which, in a time when communications were far
>> from instantaneous, dragged on for a bit.
>>
>> And thanks for illustrating that even a clear point can be ignored by
>> people fanatically insistent on refuting it.
>
>And now you're treating getting the month wrong as being "fanatically
>insistent."

When did I say getting the month wrong mattered? Why /would/ it
matter? Either this is a "nigglened edge case" independent of the War
of 1812, or it is /part/ of the War of 1812, in which case it is not a
separate example from the War of 1812.

Nice try at a save, though. Just continue on with your fanaticism.

>*plonk*

I felt nothing. Sorry 'bout that.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 28 Mar 2024 22:40:08 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
>>> the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
>>
>>Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
>>the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.
>
>What if it's only one armed foreigner?
>
>>In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
>>on behalf of the French government?
>
>He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.
>--scott

He was the Norman government, Philip I was the French government.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 3/29/2024 8:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:44:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/2024 9:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:44:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/27/2024 4:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>>>>>>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> December 1814 not count?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
>>>>>> invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
>>>>> you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
>>>>> who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
>>>>> them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
>>>>> teacher would not do so, however.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
>>>>>> participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
>>>>>> flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
>>>>>> just confused.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, insurrection is not invasion.
>>>
>>> I find it amazing how many people are still niggling about this.
>>>
>>> Why is it so hard to believe that Russia, given its situation, has
>>> been invaded more often than the USA? Is there a contest on to see
>>> which country has been invaded most often? Is there a prize at stake?
>>>
>>> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
>>> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
>>> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
>>> pure and simple.
>>>
>>> The interesting question is whether States can use their newly granted
>>> authority to bar candidates from local office (but not for
>>> President/VP) can bar candidates from Senate and House races? Although
>>> they are part of the Federal gummint, they /do/ represent the State,
>>> after all.
>>
>> With the current SC they will try to rule such that MAGA people cannot
>> be barred but everyone else can be. :P
>
> That's not what they ruled so far -- for purely local offices, at
> least.

They're just not high enough ranked MAGA people.... :P

(Sort of like the Purge universe, you have to high enough in the
government before you are safe.)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 3/29/2024 9:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:04:27 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
>>> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
>>> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
>>> pure and simple.
>>
>> So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that
>> line too often before. "Love it or leave it."
>
> No -- but acting as an agent of a foreign power when you have sworn an
> oath to the USA (not just pledged allegiance, sworn an oath as part of
> taking an office, such as, oh, Reprentative or Senator or President,
> among many others) can be, depending on what the foreign power is up
> to and if you allow your allegiance to that power to influence your
> official performance.

Actually, any Federal employee has sworn that oath. I did both times I
worked on the decennial Census. And it is a lifetime oath.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:04:27 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 3/28/24 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> As to Jan 6 2021 -- if Trump is/was, in fact, an agent of Putin (as
>>> many of his supporters appear to be, given their eagerness to gift
>>> Putin Ukraine), then it was not an insurrection -- it was treason,
>>> pure and simple.
>>
>>So now opposition to US foreign policy is "treason." I've heard that=20
>>line too often before. "Love it or leave it."
>
>No -- but acting as an agent of a foreign power when you have sworn an
>oath to the USA (not just pledged allegiance, sworn an oath as part of
>taking an office, such as, oh, Reprentative or Senator or President,
>among many others) can be, depending on what the foreign power is up
>to and if you allow your allegiance to that power to influence your
>official performance.

It worked for Klaus Fuchs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>On 28 Mar 2024 22:40:08 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of
>>>> the Mexican government? Or was he acting as a private citizen?
>>>
>>>Does it matter? If a bunch of armed foreigners working together cross
>>>the US border to use force against Americans, that's an invasion.
>>
>>What if it's only one armed foreigner?
>>
>>>In 1066, was William the Conquerer an authorized representative acting
>>>on behalf of the French government?
>>
>>He was the French government. L'etat, c'etait lui.
>
>He was the Norman government, Philip I was the French government.

Yes! I stand corrected!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:19:41 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>A book I read recently asserted that, by 1914 (it was written in
>1896), the world would be a shambles, all states would be dissolved,
>all denomination likewise, and the world would be ruled from
>Jerusalem, by a partnership between the Saxons (that is, the Ten Lost
>Tribes) and the Jews (as junior partners, of course).
>
>Believing you are God's Chosen People probably fed into WASP racism,
>but it didn't cause it.

So was this "British Israelism" (a la Herbert W Armstrong but not
invented by him) or something else?

These days it mostly exists in the song "Jerusalem" and practically
nowhere else in the UK - though I heard of one branch of the
philosophy / theology including the United States as part of "the
promise"

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:03:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>>[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
>>are/were guilty of similar hubris.
>
>Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
>involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
>central and south america. Since then, not so much.

You mean like vs. Spain or Mexico? Or dozens of aboriginal tribes? Or
Hawaii? (I'll grant - the US paid $$$ for French Louisiana and Alaska)
At least in terms of square mileage the US took more territory than
anybody but Russia (their main gain being Siberia) and with the
exception of the Phillipines - kept it all. (On the Phillipines, in
1941 Manila was considered the 6th biggest city in the United States
and many Americans in 1946 were shocked that the Filipinos preferred
independence to statehood)

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:45:55 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
>was an attempted invasion) during 1814.

Not to mention US attempts against Canada both in 1775 against Quebec
and 1812 (mostly what is now the area between Niagara Falls and
Toronto)

Which is how Burlington, Ontario (my late wife's hometown) became the
last place in the British empire to execute by hanging drawing and
quartering - in 1816 against 4 men (of uncertain nationality but said
to have owed allegiance to Britain) who acted for American forces on
their way from Niagara Falls to York (today known as Toronto) as
guides. It was claimed 1500-2000 British soldiers (many of whom were
local militia) died due to their actions.

Needless to say that "achievement" is not well publicized by the
Burlington tourist bureau and I got whacked by Milady when I showed
her the reference in Pierre Berton's book on the 1812-13 campaign and
his description of what happened to the guides and specifically where.
(The old Berlington city square which still exists but mostly as a
tourist trap - it's about 1 1/2 miles from her parents' home and
somewhere she knew well minus that one factoid)

On 27 Mar 2024 05:26:05 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>Well, if you count the Aleutians, then you have to count Pearl Harbor &
>The Philippines.

The Japanese actually took Kiska and Attu and while the Japanese
withdrew from Kiska (the only "inhabitant" left on Kiska was the
Japanese commander's dog who was left behind by mistake and was
terrified after six weeks of bombing before the "liberation" (I put
that in quotes since Kiska had no human inhabitants when "liberated"),
it took a joint US-Canadian force to re-take Attu - and was the first
of the "island hopping" battles of 1943-45.

The Attu battle would probably be better known had the commanding
general not been killed at Okinawa - he was the highest ranking
American casualty of the Pacific theater.

I agree with you on the Philippines though many wouldn't. Many
Filipinos felt the US had "cut and run" from the Japanese in 1941-42
despite Corregidor and other such places.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:47:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
Actually for me one of my funniest experiences of my 11 years in
Toastmasters was the highly jingoistic pro-British speech I made
concerning the War of 1812. It was a private joke since while I do
have ancestors who fought in that war all of them fought in the New
York state militia which were the units most involved in the invasion
of today's southern Ontario. (I told all this to my friends over
drinks after the speech) I distinctly remember the line "You know the
'rockets' red glare? the bombs bursting in air? Well those were OUR
rockets and OUR bombs - but we don't advertise that much to our
American friends these days!"

While I have ancestors (on my mother;s side) who served in the Royal
Navy (most as sailors but one as a ship commander in WW1 - to be sure
it was a minesweeper which was one of the smaller of 'His Majesty's
ships' but WAS a ship command) none were in North America 1812-15.

On 27 Mar 2024 13:19:56 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
>>reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
>>the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
>>to be stopped.
>
>I do not believe this is true at all. Putin considers the USSR to have
>been weak, and Lenin as having made compromises that wouldn't have been
>made by a stronger leader. Putin does not want to reconstruct the Soviet
>Union, he wants to reconstruct the Russian state of Ivan the Terrible.
>--scott

If that is true then what is Putin doing invading Ukraine?

Since as the map from Britannica shows:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-the-Terrible

while Ivan's Russia was a fairly big place it DIDN'T include St
Petersburg, the Baltic states, Belorus or nearly all of Ukraine.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:03:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>>[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
>>>are/were guilty of similar hubris.
>>
>>Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
>>involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
>>central and south america. Since then, not so much.
>
>You mean like vs. Spain or Mexico? Or dozens of aboriginal tribes? Or
>Hawaii? (I'll grant - the US paid $$$ for French Louisiana and Alaska)
>At least in terms of square mileage the US took more territory than
>anybody but Russia (their main gain being Siberia) and with the
>exception of the Phillipines - kept it all. (On the Phillipines, in
>1941 Manila was considered the 6th biggest city in the United States
>and many Americans in 1946 were shocked that the Filipinos preferred
>independence to statehood)

Note that I specified 1895 or so. The spanish american war in 1898
changed that, and WWII (isolationism still existed up to the
first WWI).

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:34:13 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 3/27/2024 10:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
>> The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
>> Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
>>
>That is debatable. Lend-lease helped but even without it there is good
>reason to believe the CCCP would have at least regained all their lost
>territory. It just would have taken longer and a larger body count.

While I would agree with that, it would have saved the future 'Warsaw
Pact' countries from 45 years of Soviet domination. Whether Stalin
would have reached the 1939 or 1941 Soviet boundaries is an exercise
for the alt-history types and the wargamers (I'd be included in both
those categories).

Though I personally am convinced that Russia paid too high a
"butcher's bill" during the war to still have a vibrant economy 10
years afterwards. In a 'no lend lease' war a postwar Russia / USSR
would be too weak to require an alliance like NATO to contain it.

There are too many "butterflies" to speculate on the long term effect
on modern Europe as such a Russia would not have been powerful enough
to dictate the creation of anything like NATO (militarily) or the
ancestors of the European Union (economic) particularly if the Reich
had been subdued by nuclear weaponry.